posted at 12:41 pm on May 8, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Help me out here: can the Obama White House possibly boast of a more useful stooge than this guy? Of course, Chris “thrill up my leg” Matthews has made no secret of his infatuation with the man, the myth, the legend that is Barack Obama, but at first, I thought he had his tongue in his cheek. Upon closer examination, however, that doesn’t appear to be the case — I think the gentleman is in earnest.

Really? “Evolution” is just a handy-dandy term being used by President Obama’s messaging team, because it allows him to hold hard decisions on the issue at arm’s length while implying that gay-marriage advocates can readily hope for something better in the future — all without ever actually committing to anything. Matthews’ doesn’t seem to have been listening to what his own guest says earlier in the segment: there aren’t many who really believe that President Obama is personally undecided about gay marriage and that his hesitation is anything other than a practical political matter. It’s just another rhetorical tease from the Campaigner-in-Chief, but Matthews buys into the White House’s narrative perfectly. Oh, but you say that the president is open to new ideas and actively thinking about the issue? The joy! The rapture! What infallible conclusions will he come to next?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: that Chris Matthews’ show is called “Hardball” never ceases to amaze.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

This thread is an excellent example of what happens when you get libertarians and Ayn Randians trying to boil down the sum total of three thousand years of human wisdom into slogans like “personal liberty” and “choice” without comprehending what those words even mean. Conservatism does not eschew the lessons of history, the truth of Christianity and the moral order of the universe for a cheap slogan of “whatever feels good to me, society should endorse”. Love the Chesterton passage somebody quoted before.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Not everyone is christian and not everyone adheres to your definition of morality. While I do agree personally with the christian principals that you espouse, I don’t wish to impose my beliefs on anyone. Will this be harmful to our society? I really don’t know the answer to that question but I would rather err on the side of liberty

Conservatism does not eschew the lessons of history, the truth of Christianity and the moral order of the universe for a cheap slogan of “whatever feels good to me, society should endorse”.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 5:28 PM

steel guy on May 8, 2012 at 5:30 PM

steel guy, given the quote above yours, that conservatives only recognize the “truth of Christianity and the moral order of the universe” (which is inherently Christian by that standard), then yes, conservatism may not be what you think it is.

The overarching problem with this issue is that you have two sets of people who disagree on what “the Truth” is, and both groups believe fervently in their version. Neither side can be dissuaded from that viewpoint.

If neither side can agree on basic “Truth”, in fact have such diametrically opposed views of what that “Truth” is, then it is near impossible to come to any consensus. It makes the debate in general rather worthless and mostly an exercise in banging our respective heads against brick walls.

@tom you say that progressives are driving this but DOMA was the catalyst that started all of this when the federal government was used to over ride a traditional State prerogative. Who therefore involved the government into people’s lives? Just as the repeal of DADT was a relaxation of a government policy the over ride of DOMA will return rights to the citizens that were unfairly stolen by people blatantly lying and fear mongering.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM

DOMA said that one state changing its marriage laws would not force other states to change theirs. Clearly it was designed to prevent the attempt to legalize same-sex marriage in one state, then force all others to comply through the full-faith-and-credit part of the Constitution.

As I said, progressives were driving it and trying to find a back-door way to force their agenda on the rest of the nation.

The activism is part of the progressive agenda. Don’t throw up a smokescreen pretending this was a fight picked by social conservatives.

@BKennedy actually science has reached the point where we can be the direct and only biological parents of our children. Through a complicated process involving sperm dna and an empty egg. Does that therefore negate your entire premise?

You constantly say that all gays are promiscuous, but you could just as easily say the same thing about straights. The behavior of both groups can be bad if they are led to believe that is the life that is destined for them. Quite simply put your expectations drive people to be promiscuous because that is the roll you say they should fill.

You do not have a marriage, you simply have a deep, disordered lust and perhaps if you are lucky that lust will never wane, and you will not expose yourself to further injury. It is my sincere hope that you repent, change your ways, and find a good woman to share your life with.

Really your blatant bias makes me respect you less, I’m trying to have a discussion, you’re just trying to find ways to pretty up bigotry. Why would I marry a woman? to make her unhappy? If you say you’re only looking at the data, over 60% of marriages in Oklahoma end in divorce since only 40% are successful, it is obviously a failed institution that perhaps shouldn’t be saved. I’m just looking at the numbers The majority of spouses cheat on each other I’m just looking at the numbers But you say that gays are promiscuous.

There are hundreds and thousands of abandoned children, and I’m suppose to turn a blind eye to their suffering? Did it ever occur to you that the reason I am monogamous and have a stable house is I wanted an environment that would be compatible with raising a family?? But you twist even that, I’m starting to think that it’s not your philosophy but you that has a problem. You don’t think that gays don’t have any driving biological urges to have kids? My bf and I have already decided that we didn’t want to go the surrogate route, but that there were more then enough adoptable kids that needed a good home.

Your description of a gay household sounded an awful lot like a normal heterosexual household btw. Your thoughts on adoption are really troubled. Coming from a family that heavily practices adoption I think you should apologize to all the families that bring children into their house and families and love as much if not more then their bio parents did. Your cold clinical ideas of marriage and breeding belong in an institution, not a world of loving families. You lost what was gained and you are trying to replace it with something far worse.

that’s a bs stereotype and since I’m gay and monogamous and all my gay friends are as well. Yes there are gays that are not, but since all my straight friends have all been divoriced at least once this is a pointless strawman meant to denigrate, and slander. If men keeping it in their pants is the yardstick then straights shouldn’t get to marry. Every watch Jersey Shore? no gays there…

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 4:46 PM

No, THIS is BS. This attempt to paint gays as mostly monogamous. Really, “All your gay friends are monogamous?” You want us to believe that monogamous homosexual men are the rule?

the truth of Christianity and the moral order of the universe for a cheap slogan of “whatever feels good to me, society should endorse”. Love the Chesterton passage somebody quoted before.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 5:28 PM

lol Please tell me the TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. please enlighten me about where and who wrote your bible, tell about the countless committees and translations, the tweaking of the words, the pointlessness of trying to compare our lives to the people who thought disease came from demons. Prove to me that dead people rose up when he died, tell me all about how he rose from the dead. Then tell me why this gives you the right to tell me who I can marry in the eye of MY GOVERNMENT and not your church.

the truth of Christianity and the moral order of the universe for a cheap slogan of “whatever feels good to me, society should endorse”. Love the Chesterton passage somebody quoted before.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 5:28 PM

lol Please tell me the TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. please enlighten me about where and who wrote your bible, tell about the countless committees and translations, the tweaking of the words, the pointlessness of trying to compare our lives to the people who thought disease came from demons. Prove to me that dead people rose up when he died, tell me all about how he rose from the dead. Then tell me why this gives you the right to tell me who I can marry in the eye of MY GOVERNMENT and not your church.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Scratch a homosexual advocate, and find a radical antiChristian. Almost makes you think the real agenda is against the Christian faith….

No, THIS is BS. This attempt to paint gays as mostly monogamous. Really, “All your gay friends are monogamous?” You want us to believe that monogamous homosexual men are the rule?

tom on May 8, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Whoa there tex….If you have some links to studies that show definatively that what you say is true or what he says is false, fine and dandy, throw down. Otherwise, it just appears you’re arguing for the sake of argument. And you’re looking kinda like a jerk as you do so.

I couldn’t care less who you sleep with. I couldn’t care less who you marry. It’s none of my business. If you think cruelly limiting the liberty of some for religious or moral or societal reasons is the way to go, I have to ask: What happens if the people you denigrate today end up with political power to limit your liberty someday? Do you think their memories will be short? Will you be as understanding when your head is on the chopping block and they tell you it’s because of your current bigotry, or will you ONLY THEN cry about lost liberty?

Leave them alone, they didn’t do a damn thing to you. Mind your own damn business.

I can certainly understand your frustration. It wasn’t long ago when I was opposed to gay marriage. I never really paid it much thought to be honest with you. I don’t feel any dislike for gay people and the ones I know are all good hard working people who I happen to like. Someone asked me to sign a petition for DOMA and I had to really thing about where I stand on principal about the role of government in our lives. I couldn’t sign based on the principals I happen to believe in outlined by the declaration of independence as well as the constitution and the bill of rights. I think that good people are uneasy about surrendering their long held beliefs and some will never come around. This doesn’t mean they are bad people they just can’t accept the changes that are happening too fast in our society for them to be comfortable with.

Perhaps the word conservative has come to mean somthing other than what I always thought it meant. To me it was the belief in less government that bound us conservatives which on the flip side means more liberty. This principle ought to be our guide. The government is overreaching when it attempts to define of redefine the meaning of the word marriage. I wish they would just call it something else and move on.

steel guy

That is what conservative used to mean and what the GOP platform used to be about. Social cons have greatly watered down that part of the Republican Platform in favor of legislated valued.

The GOP platform at one time greatly emphasized individual liberty. But that was the same time the social cons were busy nominating Jimmy Carter for Democratic Candidate for 76.

No, THIS is BS. This attempt to paint gays as mostly monogamous. Really, “All your gay friends are monogamous?” You want us to believe that monogamous homosexual men are the rule?

tom on May 8, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Whoa there tex….If you have some links to studies that show definatively that what you say is true or what he says is false, fine and dandy, throw down. Otherwise, it just appears you’re arguing for the sake of argument. And you’re looking kinda like a jerk as you do so.

I couldn’t care less who you sleep with. I couldn’t care less who you marry. It’s none of my business. If you think cruelly limiting the liberty of some for religious or moral or societal reasons is the way to go, I have to ask: What happens if the people you denigrate today end up with political power to limit your liberty someday? Do you think their memories will be short? Will you be as understanding when your head is on the chopping block and they tell you it’s because of your current bigotry, or will you ONLY THEN cry about lost liberty?

Leave them alone, they didn’t do a damn thing to you. Mind your own damn business.

runawayyyy on May 8, 2012 at 6:05 PM

It’s pretty well documented that homosexual men are far more promiscuous than normal men. Now he claims that’s a stereotype, and that most homosexual men are monogamous.

Now, it is technically possible that he and his friends are part of those rare exceptions, but even if that were true he knows good and well that they are not representative of the majority of homosexuals.

Yet everything he said above was intended to make you believe that most homosexuals are monogamous, and to make people who question that look like bigots.

I called BS, accurately.

And you call me a jerk because you disagree.

Men and women are quite literally made for each other. That is basic biology. Another quick glance at basic biology should make it obvious that the proportions are one-to-one. Male and Female both have a single sex organ, and son-of-a-gun they just so happen to fit together. And when they come together sexually, they just happen to reproduce. And those children just happen to need long-term parents, and just so happen to do better with a mother and a father, and their lives just happen to be worse if the father or mother is missing. And the differences in the man and woman just happen to complement each other.

You’d almost think all this was by design.

But none of that matters! What’s important is that you ignore family, children, tradition, the very special relationship between husband and wife, the need for children to have a mother and a father, and everything else so that we can pretend that two homosexuals are just as married, and therefore homosexuality must be just as good as a normal family.

And with all that, I haven’t begun to identify all that makes marriage the bedrock institution of society. We desperately need more solid marriages and families that stay together. Instead, progressives continue their long history of destroying the foundational institutions of our country.

But none of that matters! What’s important is that you ignore family, children, tradition, the very special relationship between husband and wife, the need for children to have a mother and a father, and everything else so that we can pretend that two homosexuals are just as married, and therefore homosexuality must be just as good as a normal family.

Heterosexuals seem to do a good enough job ignoring this “Very special relationship” if you look at cheating, divorce rates and domestic violence.

I have just seen so many arguments put forth as why to deny gays the right to marry, that are even more damning if applying to heterosexuals.

With arguments like this, one could make an argument to outlaw heterosexual marriage.

Oh just loves telling everyone else how they ought to live their lives, don’t they?

steel guy

Yeah and if these people get their way, the GOP will be primarily about religion and legislating values, instead of individual liberty, smaller government and fiscal sanity.

Santorum was the epitome of that mindset. They have a mindset that is more congregational in nature, than about individual freedom. Santorum made it clear how much he is against individual freedom, and that we need the federal government to tell us how to live.

I do not want the federal government doing anything it does not absolutely have to. Important things are border security, defense, fiscal policy, things like that, not wasting time with silly legislation to prevent gays from getting married.

Not everyone is christian and not everyone adheres to your definition of morality. While I do agree personally with the christian principals that you espouse, I don’t wish to impose my beliefs on anyone. Will this be harmful to our society? I really don’t know the answer to that question but I would rather err on the side of liberty

steel guy on May 8, 2012 at 5:42 PM

Who gives a crap what you “adhere to”? Morality exists objectively – there is a moral order to the universe which men can study just as they study laws of physics. One thing we know is that rape is wrong. I’m going to assume you agree. Are you uncomfortable “imposing” that belief on rapists? Why or why not? Better to erro on the side of liberty, right, eh?

If neither side can agree on basic “Truth”, in fact have such diametrically opposed views of what that “Truth” is, then it is near impossible to come to any consensus. It makes the debate in general rather worthless and mostly an exercise in banging our respective heads against brick walls.

gravityman on May 8, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Funny… a guy with the name “gravity” (i.e. a question of physics) espousing left-wing “your truth, my truth, whatever truth you want to be truth” subjectivism.

Truth exists. We debate in order to derive truth, or at least that’s what we ought to do. When you liberals try to set as a “ground rule” for debate that no truth will allowed, you poison the well of discourse and that’s why you end up constantly blabbing about your feelings and calling the other side names.

The GOP platform at one time greatly emphasized individual liberty. But that was the same time the social cons were busy nominating Jimmy Carter for Democratic Candidate for 76.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 6:26 PM

The foundational plank of the Republican Party was to abolish slavery, that is to say, take away the so-called rights of the slave-owning southerners. I don’t know if your counterparts of that era called themselves “libertarians” or some other term, but you can be sure they were denouncing us as radicals imposing our morality on others, taking away the individual liberty of using one’s property as one likes, blah blah blah.

The history of abolition should be the only illustration anyone needs of the principle that “rights” does not mean anything and everything you personally want to do. “Rights” are freedoms given to us and intended for us by God. Free speech is a right. Freedom of work and enterprise is a right. Murdering your baby is not a right. Sodomy and smoking pot? You haven’t convinced me.

Who gives a crap what you “adhere to”? Morality exists objectively – there is a moral order to the universe which men can study just as they study laws of physics. One thing we know is that rape is wrong. I’m going to assume you agree. Are you uncomfortable “imposing” that belief on rapists? Why or why not? Better to erro on the side of liberty, right, eh?

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 6:56 PM

First, there is no need to be rude to make your point, I think we can disagree without resorting to angry statements like you just posted.

Liberty is a human right but it is limited to the point where you cannot infringe on anyone elses right. Rape is indeed an infringement on another person rights. Hope that clears it up for ya.

Who gives a crap what you “adhere to”? Morality exists objectively – there is a moral order to the universe which men can study just as they study laws of physics. One thing we know is that rape is wrong. I’m going to assume you agree. Are you uncomfortable “imposing” that belief on rapists? Why or why not? Better to erro on the side of liberty, right, eh?

joe_doufu

And its only been quite recent that rape was illegal within marriage. It was just considered part of a womans wifely duties to sexually submit, and if the man went ahead and took it, thats fine because it was her fault and immoral of her for not giving it up. It was not seen as immoral for the husband to rape the wife, because legally it was not even rape.

If it was such an immutable law, it would have never been legal in the first place. You can certainly not place values judgements on the same realm as laws of physics. Moral orders change. It was long seen as immoral to shop on sundays, or it was seen as moral to prevent blacks and women from voting.

We now know that was immoral to demand that blacks eat out back or use seperate water fountains. But if you asked many whites in those areas then, they would have thought that was completely moral.

Yeah and if these people get their way, the GOP will be primarily about religion and legislating values, instead of individual liberty, smaller government and fiscal sanity.

Santorum was the epitome of that mindset. They have a mindset that is more congregational in nature, than about individual freedom. Santorum made it clear how much he is against individual freedom, and that we need the federal government to tell us how to live.

I do not want the federal government doing anything it does not absolutely have to. Important things are border security, defense, fiscal policy, things like that, not wasting time with silly legislation to prevent gays from getting married.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 6:52 PM

It’s so simple isn’t it? And yet so difficult. I like the way you think.

Ooooh, the president is “thinking” . . . . I guess we’re all supposed to sit enraptured while Solomon of Chigago mulls the nettlesome question of gay marriage with a learned answer promised on or about November 7th . . .

Heterosexuals seem to do a good enough job ignoring this “Very special relationship” if you look at cheating, divorce rates and domestic violence.

I have just seen so many arguments put forth as why to deny gays the right to marry, that are even more damning if applying to heterosexuals.

With arguments like this, one could make an argument to outlaw heterosexual marriage.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Who are these heterosexuals you speak of?

Oh, you mean normal people!

You’re just now getting clued in to the fact that normal people don’t always act like they should? Or is it just now convenient to use it as an excuse to justify what you want?

You know why divorce is so high? Because of no-fault divorce, because of compassion for those whose marriage is unsatisfying, and who therefore don’t want to live up to their marriage vows.

And the very people you’re criticizing, social conservatives, were opposed to no-fault divorce because it would lead to more and more divorce and hurt the institution of marriage, and were derided as being harsh, judgemental, and uncompassionate, and trying to enforce their morality on everyone else.

And now their failure to impose their morality on everyone else is being cited as an excuse to prevent them from imposing their morality on everyone else.

Why, it’s almost like that’s just a rhetorical device to justify no moral standards at all!

But surely that’s just paranoia.

The one thing same-sex marriage advocates want is not equal rights, which could be more easily and quickly guaranteed by something like a legally recognized civil union, or by allowing homosexuals who take “commitment vows” to form a legally recognized Joint Tenant with Right of Survivorship entity. But that’s not good enough precisely because it is not called marriage, and therefore lacks what the advocates desire most: an official statement that homosexual couples are just as much married as normal couples.

I happen to believe the reason for the high divorce rate is because people no longer need to stay in a failed marriage like they once did. Financially a spouse could leave a marriage and still get by much easier than it used to be. I think people had to stick it out because they had little choice. In a way I think we are victims of our own success as a society, as much as moral decline.

It seems that Chris doesn’t truly understand the evolution he’s touting. Let’s take a simple look at evolution. It demands that successful species must both survive and REPRODUCE. A man cannot impregnate another man and a woman has zero ability to impregnate anyone let alone her “partner.” Thus, evolution demands that success of the species relies on a heterosexual relationship. Any other relationship is suboptimal and an unwanted trait. Chris, you fail evolution 101 (not to mention physiology 101).

I happen to believe the reason for the high divorce rate is because people no longer need to stay in a failed marriage like they once did. Financially a spouse could leave a marriage and still get by much easier than it used to be. I think people had to stick it out because they had little choice. In a way I think we are victims of our own success as a society, as much as moral decline.

steel guy on May 8, 2012 at 7:53 PM

We make it easier to get divorces, we get more divorces. Didn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure that one out.

But the reason given to make divorce easier was to prevent people from being “trapped in a loveless marriage.” Compassion for people in unhappy marriages led to more unhappy divorces and loads of unhappy children.

Which somehow leads to the argument that marriage is a failed institution because of the people who wanted out, even though most of them eventually remarry, so presumably didn’t consider marriage to be undesirable after all.

We now know that was immoral to demand that blacks eat out back or use seperate water fountains. But if you asked many whites in those areas then, they would have thought that was completely moral.

firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 7:12 PM

The fact that truth exists means that sometimes people are wrong. People can be “immoral” because of, not in spite of, the existence of objective morality. Which you reject. So what are you trying to convince yourself of?

The foundational plank of the Republican Party was to abolish slavery, that is to say, take away the so-called rights of the slave-owning southerners. I don’t know if your counterparts of that era called themselves “libertarians” or some other term, but you can be sure they were denouncing us as radicals imposing our morality on others, taking away the individual liberty of using one’s property as one likes, blah blah blah.

Not sure if you have ever actually paid attention to small government or even libertarian ideals, slavery does not exactly fall into letting people live their own lives. Slavery was about controlling the individual through enslavement, not about giving everyone as much freedom as possible. Trying to equate small government libertarianism with continuation of slavery, is bizarre to say the least.

Excessive government control of our lives, is just another form of slavery, with a different master.

And I am sure in the south, Slavery was seen as moral and Christian too, in the religious stronghold of the southeast.

Much as the people have a right to know what the president is actually thinking, especially before an election, I actually don’t want Obama to come clean on this. As long as he keeps “evolving”, Mitt can use this to counter any allegation of flip-flopping, and put him on the spot every time.

The fact that truth exists means that sometimes people are wrong. People can be “immoral” because of, not in spite of, the existence of objective morality. Which you reject. So what are you trying to convince yourself of?

joe_doufu

But if you asked them then, I am sure they would have expounded on how moral slavery was, and to not have them enslaved would result in the destruction of society.

Same with denying them the right to vote, southerners thought it was immoral to deny blacks voting, and that segregation was the Christian thing to do.

So maybe I am a bit suspicious of those who through out morality, sanctity , and religion as motives to put them in charge.. If gays are allowed to marry, I do not see how it is going to cause the downfall of society, nor is it going to effect any heterosexual marriage. Gays cant reproduce, and it seems gays come from heterosexual marriages too.

People should spend time improving their own individual marriage, before worrying about someone elses relationships. That what I have against moralists, they always want to tell everyone else how to live.

No one is perfect and being heterosexual does not make me a better person than someone who is homosexual.

But the reason given to make divorce easier was to prevent people from being “trapped in a loveless marriage.” Compassion for people in unhappy marriages led to more unhappy divorces and loads of unhappy children.

If you’re trying to say that compassion is wrong, while claiming to be a Christian I just can’t take you seriously. Do you not get a grasp of the irony of your position? In fact I’ll take it further, because there have always and probably will always be gay people wouldn’t the compassionate thing to do would be to encourage what we accept as the best relationship? Rather then drive people out your goal should always be to bring them together. Marriage is about a lot more then just “breeding”, it’s about stability, commitment and companionship. I hope you can see the difference.

I will say that it was not that long ago, I was against gay marriage.
What made my sympathetic to them, was the difference in arguments.

Gays said they just want to be able to marry like everyone else does. Anti gay marriage argument were about if gays can marry, it will cheapen everyone elses marriages, society will implode, the traditional family will be destroyed, “Sodom and Gomorrah”, etc etc.

Sorry, but my arguments are not swayed by hyperbole and moralizing, but by arguing people should having the same rights, regardless of orientation. Someone being is gay is not going to harm me, is not change the nature of my marriage, nor is it going to cause the destruction of heterosexual marriages.

The moralists seem to find any possible way to lose sleep over others lifestyle choices.

But the reason given to make divorce easier was to prevent people from being “trapped in a loveless marriage.” Compassion for people in unhappy marriages led to more unhappy divorces and loads of unhappy children.

If you’re trying to say that compassion is wrong, while claiming to be a Christian I just can’t take you seriously. Do you not get a grasp of the irony of your position? In fact I’ll take it further, because there have always and probably will always be gay people wouldn’t the compassionate thing to do would be to encourage what we accept as the best relationship? Rather then drive people out your goal should always be to bring them together. Marriage is about a lot more then just “breeding”, it’s about stability, commitment and companionship. I hope you can see the difference.

Zekecorlain on May 8, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Ever hear the expression, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

Compassion is good. Compassion that encourages people to break their vows is not good. Compassion can be frequently misguided. Encouraging people to do wrong is not compassionate, even if the intentions were originally good.

In the case of marriage, “doing the right thing” was sometimes arduous or unpleasant or required sacrifice. It seemed good to say, “if you’re not happy, then just let it go.” The idea of staying together “for the sake of the children” was mocked, and we were assured children would actually be happier if the parents went ahead and divorced. But the result did not live up to the promise. Turns out children were actually happier if their parents stayed together. Millions of broken homes later, and do we even get an “Oops” from the experts who assured us that no-fault divorce was the best option?

So no, Christian compassion does not lead to Christians encouraging people to commit sin. That’s a false compassion that only does harm.

“Compassion is an empathy and sympathy for the suffering of others, regarded as a part of love itself, and a cornerstone of greater social interconnection and humanism — foundational to the highest principles in philosophy, society, and personhood. There is an aspect of compassion which regards a quantitative dimension, such that individual’s compassion is often given a property of “depth,” “vigour,” or “passion.” More vigorous than empathy, the feeling commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another’s suffering. It is often, though not inevitably, the key component in what manifests in the social context as altruism. In ethical terms, the various expressions down the ages of the so-called Golden Rule embody by implication the principle of compassion: Do to others what you would have them do to you.[1]
The English noun compassion, meaning to suffer together with, comes from the Latin. Its prefix com- comes directly from com, an archaic version of the Latin preposition and affix cum (= with); the -passion segment is derived from passus, past participle of the deponent verb patior, patī, passus sum. Compassion is thus related in origin, form and meaning to the English noun patient (= one who suffers), from patiens, present participle of the same patior, and is akin to the Greek verb πάσχειν (= paskhein, to suffer) and to its cognate noun πάθος (= pathos).[2][3] Ranked a great virtue in numerous philosophies, compassion is considered in almost all the major religious traditions as among the greatest of virtues.”

If you deny compassion you allow suffering. If suffering is constant pain, then you believe that constant pain leads to greater good then I cannot agree with you. In medicine pain is not good, nothing beneficial comes from it, it degrades both the quality of life and health of the sufferer.

When it comes to vows, how childish is it to say that we can’t make mistakes? I’m sure a christian who believes in an eternal hell finds benefit to pointless torment. However it doesn’t hold to the reality that we live in. If people are happier in stable marriages and you deny them that then you become a tool of the pain of loneliness. For you to say that this is beneficial doesn’t even hold up to the evidence.

nothing in your argument brings peace and happiness, what does that say?

If you deny compassion you allow suffering. If suffering is constant pain, then you believe that constant pain leads to greater good then I cannot agree with you. In medicine pain is not good, nothing beneficial comes from it, it degrades both the quality of life and health of the sufferer.

When it comes to vows, how childish is it to say that we can’t make mistakes? I’m sure a christian who believes in an eternal hell finds benefit to pointless torment. However it doesn’t hold to the reality that we live in. If people are happier in stable marriages and you deny them that then you become a tool of the pain of loneliness. For you to say that this is beneficial doesn’t even hold up to the evidence.

nothing in your argument brings peace and happiness, what does that say?

Do you want the government to make it more difficult to divorce? You don’t think that is clearly beyond what the role of goverment should be?

steel guy on May 8, 2012 at 9:15 PM

The government necessarily has a bigger role in divorce, because it’s going to wind up getting involved in the dissolution of common assets. That’s one reason divorces are generally a lot messier than marriages. And the government can’t very well stay out of the divorce entirely, since the divorce is necessary to establish that one person is no longer liable for the debts of the other.

But I was specifically referring to the call (in the past) for government intervention to make divorce easier to get, not calling myself for new government intervention to make divorces harder to obtain.

And I’m pointing out that the government solution — making divorce easier — has caused a lot more misery than the problem it was trying to solve.

I would almost think you were trying to put me in the role of demanding government intervention for social value goals. That’s really more the role of progressives.

@BKennedy actually science has reached the point where we can be the direct and only biological parents of our children. Through a complicated process involving sperm dna and an empty egg. Does that therefore negate your entire premise?

Would love to know where your boyfriend gets the empty egg. Oh, and which one of you two boys are carrying that fertilized egg to term? And no, don’t retort about lesbian couples, who have eggs and can carry to term, but have no sperm to contribute.

You fail biology forever, and even if you didn’t, I also oppose IVR because it treats children like a commodity, a designer item. You may feel just gay and dandy about raising a child without a mother. I think that’s pretty damn evil.

Moreover you live a slanted life that exists solely to justify activity which you know is intrinsically wrong and degrading. Why else go to such cynical and laughably pathetic lengths to try and justify its capacity as normal? It clearly and obviously isn’t.

Social cons always opposed no-fault divorce, yet gay marriage proponents always ask the question rhetorically as their starting point as if we supported it. Their very first act of arguing is to knock down a strawman because they just can’t handle an ideologically consistent opponent. An opponent who has always opposed every damaging change to marriage and accepted every theoretical argument a gay-marriage supporter has proffered for reaffirming marriage.

Here’s how that conversation goes:

Pro-GM: Well if you don’t want gays to marry I guess you oppose no fault divorce!

SoCon: Yes, I do, and more importantly – Yes, I did.

Pro-GM: Well what if we got rid of no fault divorce, huh?

SoCon: Yes, we should.

Pro-GM: HYPOCRITE!

Repeat ad infinitum, since one side is arguing in bad faith and will do anything – anything to make anyone who wants to rid them of their sick, self-destructive behaviors out to be the bad guy.

Oh, and there’s nothing compassionate about letting parents screw up their children’s lives by compounding a bad marriage with a destructive divorce. If it’s truly physically abusive there might be grounds, but “I don’t love him like I used to” just doesn’t cut it, nor does basic infidelity.

The great society program in the 60’s was intended to help the poor and it did in many ways. Unfortunately it also encouraged out of wedlock teen pregnancies and the breakup of inner city families. You’ll get no arguement from be about the harm that eccess government can do to a society.

Not sure if you have ever actually paid attention to small government or even libertarian ideals, slavery does not exactly fall into letting people live their own lives. Slavery was about controlling the individual through enslavement, not about giving everyone as much freedom as possible. Trying to equate small government libertarianism with continuation of slavery, is bizarre to say the least.

The arguments on both sides of slavery were the same (almost word for word) as the arguments on both sides of abortion. Libertarians have some disagreements amongst themselves but the vast majority are on the side of the plantation owner (mother-to-be) rather than the slave (baby), citing “right to do what I want with my property (body)” as supreme over other people’s rights to life. The libertarian ideal is not “freedom for all”, it’s “freedom, however I define it, for me first”.

And the abolition of slavery was most certainly an imposition by the federal government into the lives of individuals and the sovereignty of states. Ask any southerner, they still think the civil war was about usurping states rights first and foremost.

You oppose that, right? The government forcing everyone to abide by the morality of one party?

And I am sure in the south, Slavery was seen as moral and Christian too, in the religious stronghold of the southeast.
firepilot on May 8, 2012 at 8:26 PM

I doubt it. I think they mostly said what pro-abortion people say, “I’m personally opposed” but I can’t make that decision for others, or ending slavery would burden the economy with too many mouths to feed, or it’s regrettable that we’ll never be able to really eliminate it so we should just focus on making it safe and humane, etc, etc. But even if some of them did believe slavery was moral, they were wrong.

I was “/facepalming” at firepilot’s inability to define “rights” or “liberty” in response to my prior statement about what “rights” really are. His sentence basically said “liberty is a human right” which shows you the depth of his philosophy.

It’s pretty well documented that homosexual men are far more promiscuous than normal men. Now he claims that’s a stereotype, and that most homosexual men are monogamous.

And yet, once again, you refuse to cite a single source to back up your claim you insist is “pretty well documented”. Surely, if you’re telling the truth and you know it, such examples would be easy to find. And so you produce….nothing. Telling.

Now, it is technically possible that he and his friends are part of those rare exceptions, but even if that were true he knows good and well that they are not representative of the majority of homosexuals.

Since you have no actual evidence to support your claims about homosexual behavior, I can’t help but wonder….how did you get to be such an expert? Perhaps it’s all anecdotal? NTTAWWT.

Yet everything he said above was intended to make you believe that most homosexuals are monogamous, and to make people who question that look like bigots.

I couldn’t care less how monogamous homosexual men are, since I’ll never be marrying one. Why are you so obsessed with the issue?

I called BS, accurately.

Accurately? Based on what? Like I said before, if this claim is so easily backed up with scientific evidence, why do you refuse to produce any?

And you call me a jerk because you disagree.

And you still wonder why. Odd.

Men and women are quite literally made for each other. That is basic biology. Another quick glance at basic biology should make it obvious that the proportions are one-to-one. Male and Female both have a single sex organ, and son-of-a-gun they just so happen to fit together. And when they come together sexually, they just happen to reproduce. And those children just happen to need long-term parents, and just so happen to do better with a mother and a father, and their lives just happen to be worse if the father or mother is missing. And the differences in the man and woman just happen to complement each other.

You’d almost think all this was by design.

With all the biological diversity present just in human beings currently on this planet, you can’t conceive of any kind of diversity that might include sexual preferences different from yours? Or does the thought make you so uncomfortable that you just ignore even the possbility? It’s gotta be either ignorance or homophobia, so you tell me. Which is it?

But none of that matters! What’s important is that you ignore family, children, tradition, the very special relationship between husband and wife, the need for children to have a mother and a father, and everything else so that we can pretend that two homosexuals are just as married, and therefore homosexuality must be just as good as a normal family.

And with all that, I haven’t begun to identify all that makes marriage the bedrock institution of society. We desperately need more solid marriages and families that stay together. Instead, progressives continue their long history of destroying the foundational institutions of our country.

tom on May 8, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Are you suggesting that any of the above is in any way threatened by gay people who, for the most part, aren’t reproducing? How is Zerc getting married to another guy getting in the way of my happy family enjoying our lives? As long as he isn’t insisting I and my kids should be forced to watch what he does in the privacy of his own space (and I’m pretty sure he isn’t), what do you care? Perhaps you’re just going out of your way to be offended by something that’s none of your business.

All that said, what’s the point of a gay pride parade? Sorry, just have never been able to figure that one out.

@runawayyyy Pride parades are basically an excuse to show up in numbers, it’s hard to explain how isolated one can feel after you come to terms with the fact that you are definitely gay and not in a “phase”, or “bi” or “maybe you were just confused”. Having an event like a Pride parade basically lets you know you’re not alone. That’s why a lot of people go overboard because it’s the one time of the year when you get to hold your boyfriend’s hand in public lol. But there is also the community aspect there’s always more straights then gays that show up at a Pride parade and it’s great to know you have allies in the community as well.

In 360 comments I’m sure someone has mentioned that Chris obviously flunked elementary school biology. Evolution requires reproduction. Gays don’t. The only result they can claim is extinction.

ironked on May 9, 2012 at 8:36 AM

So lesbians are unable to conceive by artificial insemination? Gay men can’t adopt? My wife and I haven’t been able to conceive, we decided to adopt a couple kids, are we on the wrong side of evolution? Yes, those are frivolous arguments, but so is the argument that same-sex couples getting married (or getting equivalent marriage benefits) or adopting kids will bring about the crumbling of society.

The homosexual community can have their gay pride parades all they want, as long as they don’t perform lewd acts in public or expose their naughty bits in the presence of kids. And that’s not unfair discrimination… I would say the same thing to hetero couples wanting to hold a “love-in” in a public park.

Also, I personally have nothing against public display of affection. Kiss all you want, but ixnay on the ondlingfay.

It seems that Chris doesn’t truly understand the evolution he’s touting. Let’s take a simple look at evolution. It demands that successful species must both survive and REPRODUCE. A man cannot impregnate another man and a woman has zero ability to impregnate anyone let alone her “partner.” Thus, evolution demands that success of the species relies on a heterosexual relationship. Any other relationship is suboptimal and an unwanted trait. Chris, you fail evolution 101 (not to mention physiology 101).

Silver on May 8, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Maybe so, but just because it’s suboptimal or unnatural doesn’t mean it should be illicit or illegal. Just because a man can’t impregnate another man doesn’t mean they can’t adopt a child (who, by the way is without parents because his/her mother decided to give birth and give him/her up for adoption rather than have an abortion). If Chris fails Evolution & Psychology, you seemed to have failed Social Studies.

If Chris fails Evolution & Psychology, you seemed to have failed Social Studies.

TMOverbeck on May 9, 2012

giving this a strong LIKE, us gays aren’t trying to change other people’s marriage, just trying to get you to stop throwing your gay kids off the cliff. You’re the ones that birth us, it’s not like we magically appear in the cabbage patch. Honestly the disgust many carry for their own children is truly sad. So strange that you won’t trust your own children, but you’ll blindly follow a book written by people who you can’t even prove existed. Or even really wrote it.

Funny… a guy with the name “gravity” (i.e. a question of physics) espousing left-wing “your truth, my truth, whatever truth you want to be truth” subjectivism.

Truth exists. We debate in order to derive truth, or at least that’s what we ought to do. When you liberals try to set as a “ground rule” for debate that no truth will allowed, you poison the well of discourse and that’s why you end up constantly blabbing about your feelings and calling the other side names.

joe_doufu on May 8, 2012 at 6:59 PM

First of all, I’m not liberal by any stretch. I do happen to be a libertarian.

And yes, you are correct that truth exists, and that we study and debate to understand what truth is. I have not at all set forth as a ground rule that there is no truth allowed. I simply accept that human beings do not yet know everything, so there is plenty of room for scientific discovery and debate about what “truth” is. Actually, you are the one who has put a limit on what “truth” may be discussed. The only “truth” you will accept is the Bible’s “truth”. So who is really the one putting a restriction on the debate as to what truth is? If the Bible is “truth” then you first point is meaningless. What is the point of debating to discren the truth when the truth is already laid out for you there in the Bible?

I would not attempt to dissuade you from your religion and the “truth” as you see it from the Bible. I respect every persons religion, and to attempt to dissuade you would be a pointless endeavour.

giving this a strong LIKE, us gays aren’t trying to change other people’s marriage, just trying to get you to stop throwing your gay kids off the cliff. You’re the ones that birth us, it’s not like we magically appear in the cabbage patch. Honestly the disgust many carry for their own children is truly sad. So strange that you won’t trust your own children, but you’ll blindly follow a book written by people who you can’t even prove existed. Or even really wrote it.

It’s pretty well documented that homosexual men are far more promiscuous than normal men. Now he claims that’s a stereotype, and that most homosexual men are monogamous.

And yet, once again, you refuse to cite a single source to back up your claim you insist is “pretty well documented”. Surely, if you’re telling the truth and you know it, such examples would be easy to find. And so you produce….nothing. Telling.

It tells me that it’s well-documented enough that I wouldn’t expect anyone to challenge such a statement. But since you insist:

Regarding homosexuality and promiscuity, in 2004 the Baptist Press reported the following: “A new study by a group of University of Chicago researchers reveals a high level of promiscuity and unhealthy behavior among that city’s homosexual male population. According to the researchers, 42.9 percent of homosexual men in Chicago’s Shoreland area have had more than 60 sexual partners, while an additional 18.4 percent have had between 31 and 60 partners…As a result, 55.1 percent of homosexual males in Shoreland — known as Chicago’s “gay center” — have at least one sexually transmitted disease, researchers said.”[6][7]

In September of 2006, the Agape Press reported the following:
A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20 percent of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8 percent having had more than 300.

Unprotected homosexual sex is also a concern among health professionals. A survey in Ireland by the Gay Men’s Health Project found that almost half of homosexuals said they were having unprotected sex….

The fact that many homosexuals appear to live their lives in sexual overdrive does not seem to concern leaders in the movement. In an editorial from the same issue (August 15) in which the survey results were published, The Advocate said: “[Homosexuals] have been proud leaders in the sexual revolution that started in the 1960s, and we have rejected attempts by conservatives to demonize that part of who we are.”[8]

Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that “Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.'”4 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984. 6

28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: “Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: “The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: “In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., “A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men,” Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.” (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

There’s much more available, but this should be sufficient to establish that it is well-documented.

On the basis of my not initially providing links for something that is known to be well-documented, you then try to build your argument.

Now, it is technically possible that he and his friends are part of those rare exceptions, but even if that were true he knows good and well that they are not representative of the majority of homosexuals.

Since you have no actual evidence to support your claims about homosexual behavior, I can’t help but wonder….how did you get to be such an expert? Perhaps it’s all anecdotal? NTTAWWT.

See evidence above. If it is well-documented, how much expertise do I have to claim?

Yet everything he said above was intended to make you believe that most homosexuals are monogamous, and to make people who question that look like bigots.

I couldn’t care less how monogamous homosexual men are, since I’ll never be marrying one. Why are you so obsessed with the issue?

Who said I was obsessed? He said homosexual promiscuity was a BS stereotype, that he was gay and monogamous, and that all his gay friends were too. This was a fairly transparent attempt to make homosexuality seem more normal and make people who raise objection to it look foolish. He was bald-facing BS to make a rhetorical point.

I called BS, accurately.

Accurately? Based on what? Like I said before, if this claim is so easily backed up with scientific evidence, why do you refuse to produce any?

See above. As I said, accurately.

And you call me a jerk because you disagree.

And you still wonder why. Odd.

Not any more. Your advocacy is plain to see.

Men and women are quite literally made for each other. That is basic biology. Another quick glance at basic biology should make it obvious that the proportions are one-to-one. Male and Female both have a single sex organ, and son-of-a-gun they just so happen to fit together. And when they come together sexually, they just happen to reproduce. And those children just happen to need long-term parents, and just so happen to do better with a mother and a father, and their lives just happen to be worse if the father or mother is missing. And the differences in the man and woman just happen to complement each other.

You’d almost think all this was by design.

With all the biological diversity present just in human beings currently on this planet, you can’t conceive of any kind of diversity that might include sexual preferences different from yours? Or does the thought make you so uncomfortable that you just ignore even the possbility? It’s gotta be either ignorance or homophobia, so you tell me. Which is it?

I point out multiple clear ways in which men and women were clearly made for each other biologically, and your only answer is to talk about “biological diversity?” How much of this biological diversity you cite changes what I said above?

But none of that matters! What’s important is that you ignore family, children, tradition, the very special relationship between husband and wife, the need for children to have a mother and a father, and everything else so that we can pretend that two homosexuals are just as married, and therefore homosexuality must be just as good as a normal family.

And with all that, I haven’t begun to identify all that makes marriage the bedrock institution of society. We desperately need more solid marriages and families that stay together. Instead, progressives continue their long history of destroying the foundational institutions of our country.

tom on May 8, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Are you suggesting that any of the above is in any way threatened by gay people who, for the most part, aren’t reproducing? How is Zerc getting married to another guy getting in the way of my happy family enjoying our lives? As long as he isn’t insisting I and my kids should be forced to watch what he does in the privacy of his own space (and I’m pretty sure he isn’t), what do you care? Perhaps you’re just going out of your way to be offended by something that’s none of your business.

All that said, what’s the point of a gay pride parade? Sorry, just have never been able to figure that one out.

runawayyyy on May 9, 2012 at 8:52 AM

I’m saying there are multiple good reasons why marriage exists between men and women, and no good reason why it should exist between homosexuals.

They can have a commitment ceremony if they want, live together, introduce themselves to others as a couple, create powers of attorney and wills, etc. None of that requires any new laws. In fact, you can even open a joint checking account without being married.

But it’s not actually about protecting their legal rights. It’s about the demand that everyone view homosexuality as normal. Which, by the way, is exactly the reason the commenter I was responding to was pretending that homosexual men were just as monogamous as normal men. Not because it was true, but to help his argument.

It’s pretty well documented that homosexual men are far more promiscuous than normal men. Now he claims that’s a stereotype, and that most homosexual men are monogamous

This was the original claim you made that you insisted there was lots and lots of documentation for. Every single example you cited above notes only the promiscuity of HOMOSEXUAL men. Not one of them compares them to straight or bisexual men. And yet you now claim that your citations back up that they are in fact “far more promiscuous”.

Now, go back to school and try again. This time, back up the actual claim you made, and you might perhaps also try to find an unbiased source. Not that I expect you know what that word means.

I point out multiple clear ways in which men and women were clearly made for each other biologically, and your only answer is to talk about “biological diversity?” How much of this biological diversity you cite changes what I said above?

Where did I make the claim that men and women weren’t biologically made for each other? Oh, right….I didn’t. I simply pointed out that not everyone is just like you, that it’s possible they were born that way, and that maybe, just maybe, it’s not a choice. Your narrow mind can’t even grasp the scientific possibliity though, so you decide to create a strawman. If your argument is so weak you have to make up things others never said, perhaps you need a better argument.

I’m saying there are multiple good reasons why marriage exists between men and women, and no good reason why it should exist between homosexuals.

When did I say there were no good reasons for heterosexual marriage? Oh, right….I didn’t. I simply pointed out that there’s no good reason to deny someone else that right. The good reason it should exist between homosexuals is that it’s not your right to curtail theirs. Your liberty is not more important than theirs. Get over yourself.

But it’s not actually about protecting their legal rights. It’s about the demand that everyone view homosexuality as normal. Which, by the way, is exactly the reason the commenter I was responding to was pretending that homosexual men were just as monogamous as normal men. Not because it was true, but to help his argument.

tom on May 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Anyone can demand anything they like any time they want. Are you suggesting that they should be silenced from saying things you don’t like? Are you suggesting that their right to say such things somehow overrides your free will to disagree with them?

And like I said above, nothing you’ve cited says homosexual men are any more promiscuous than straights. In fact, they say nothing about straights whatsoever. Since this has been pointed out to you, if you continue to make the claim you are then a liar. Think a bit more carefully about your next response.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: All CLEAR-thinking human beings inately understand that homosexuality, precisely like abortion, is an absolute and abject violation of Natural Order, and is therefore WRONG. DummycRATs like to call the Republicans “Radical.” Well, THE ONLY reason this may seem radical to DummycRATs is because the Left has dragged this country so far to the left, that a centrist would look like a radical!?!

@Colatteral Damage obviously you know nothing about natural abortion because not only are multiple species able to reabsorb their young if they face stress while pregnant, high stress can even trigger a miscarriage in it’s own right. That’s to say nothing that the natural order is for makes to keep harems and kill any young that wasn’t theirs by genetic birth.
Then I suppose we could mention that homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 species. Not only is it in accordance with Nature it is the standard model. So go off and crack open a text book before you tell me what’s natural, for that matter do you want to tell me why your sex gland is inside your ass?

@Tom if you want real studies by real researchers and not people who are part of a discredited group who renounced their own belief in reparative therapy and have publicly asked for forgiveness for all the harm they caused. Then read this book, which a much clearer meta study of what gays get up to Yes gays can have multiple partners and no not all of them are monogamous, but the ones I hang out with are, and there are a lot more of us at the end of the day, because people don’t want to be alone.
Marriage hasn’t been about a breeding contract and property contract for 100 years. why do you think turning back the clock is a good idea? Because suffering builds character? Spend some time with gays, stop demonizing your fellow citizens, and for your own christ’s sake have a little faith in compassion.

It’s pretty well documented that homosexual men are far more promiscuous than normal men. Now he claims that’s a stereotype, and that most homosexual men are monogamous

This was the original claim you made that you insisted there was lots and lots of documentation for. Every single example you cited above notes only the promiscuity of HOMOSEXUAL men. Not one of them compares them to straight or bisexual men. And yet you now claim that your citations back up that they are in fact “far more promiscuous”.

Now, go back to school and try again. This time, back up the actual claim you made, and you might perhaps also try to find an unbiased source. Not that I expect you know what that word means.

I said it was well documented. Because you twice insisted that it was not well documented unless I gave you links to such documentation, I did exactly that. Now you want to play the game of saying, “Can you prove that normal men are not just as promiscuous?”

I’m done with you and your moving the goalposts. The original poster made a BS claim to say that homosexual promiscuity was a “BS stereotype.” If you were not able to penetrate that bogus claim, it’s not my problem.

The links I cited contained plenty of examples from gay advocacy sites as well, so you can give up the “biased source” claim also.

I point out multiple clear ways in which men and women were clearly made for each other biologically, and your only answer is to talk about “biological diversity?” How much of this biological diversity you cite changes what I said above?

Where did I make the claim that men and women weren’t biologically made for each other? Oh, right….I didn’t. I simply pointed out that not everyone is just like you, that it’s possible they were born that way, and that maybe, just maybe, it’s not a choice. Your narrow mind can’t even grasp the scientific possibliity though, so you decide to create a strawman. If your argument is so weak you have to make up things others never said, perhaps you need a better argument.

Strawman? Wouldn’t that apply to babbling about “biological diversity” when I gave clear examples of how men and women were made for each other? Not only did you create a strawman, but you projected it onto me.

I’m saying there are multiple good reasons why marriage exists between men and women, and no good reason why it should exist between homosexuals.

When did I say there were no good reasons for heterosexual marriage? Oh, right….I didn’t. I simply pointed out that there’s no good reason to deny someone else that right. The good reason it should exist between homosexuals is that it’s not your right to curtail theirs. Your liberty is not more important than theirs. Get over yourself.

Now you’re getting tiresome. My case is that there are multiple good reasons for marriage between men and women that DO NOT EXIST for homosexual men.

Let’s cut to the chase here. Homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality. Homosexual partners are not husband and wife. Marriage is between a man and a woman. After all the muss, fuss, and bother, it comes down to the fact that homosexuals do not want to accept this, and so demand “marriage equality” so that they can be declared to be just as normal, just as healthy, just as socially acceptable as normal families.

Kinda like I said here:

But it’s not actually about protecting their legal rights. It’s about the demand that everyone view homosexuality as normal. Which, by the way, is exactly the reason the commenter I was responding to was pretending that homosexual men were just as monogamous as normal men. Not because it was true, but to help his argument.

tom on May 9, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Anyone can demand anything they like any time they want. Are you suggesting that they should be silenced from saying things you don’t like? Are you suggesting that their right to say such things somehow overrides your free will to disagree with them?

And like I said above, nothing you’ve cited says homosexual men are any more promiscuous than straights. In fact, they say nothing about straights whatsoever. Since this has been pointed out to you, if you continue to make the claim you are then a liar. Think a bit more carefully about your next response.

runawayyyy on May 9, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I gave you the links to show homosexual promiscuity. If you want to claim that normal men are just as promiscuous, find your own links. Until you can find statistics proving your claim, turn your finger around and quit calling other people liars for telling you the unpleasant truth.

@Tom making an assertion and quoting from anti gay websites, whose own authors have since refuted them is hardly showing proof. Things have changed, culture moved on, it’s just the world is full of bad information sometimes. Gay culture is young, dating back to the second world war, and it has mostly been shaped by outside perceptions. This move towards marriage is about the gay culture growing up and realizing that there is more to hope for then a quick death. rather then pushing people away you should be welcoming them back and encouraging healthy lifestyles, not insisting that people will never change. You want gays not being promiscuous? hold them to a higher standard and reward them when they attain it.

@Tom making an assertion and quoting from anti gay websites, whose own authors have since refuted them is hardly showing proof. Things have changed, culture moved on, it’s just the world is full of bad information sometimes. Gay culture is young, dating back to the second world war, and it has mostly been shaped by outside perceptions. This move towards marriage is about the gay culture growing up and realizing that there is more to hope for then a quick death. rather then pushing people away you should be welcoming them back and encouraging healthy lifestyles, not insisting that people will never change. You want gays not being promiscuous? hold them to a higher standard and reward them when they attain it.

Zekecorlain on May 9, 2012 at 7:21 PM

— Show me proof!!

— Ok, here you go.

— That’s not proof!! Those people were biased!! Things have changed!!

Whatever. Apparently nothing is proof unless it confirms what you want it to say.

@tom read the definitive break down that uses all the studies, and polls thousands of people who identified or thought they identified as gay. It changed my life and I was 36. Took some chips off my shoulders, and made me confront what i chose with what I was encouraged to do. If one of your sites had real data I’d be doing the same thing, but between skewd data groups, casual assertions and using groups that purposely twisted data for profit I’m sorry to say your data just doesn’t add up. for someone to have over a 1000 partners means that for 50 years they maintained a minimum of two partners a month non stop. I don’t know how old you are but is that even reasonable? or did they have 8 partners a month for 10 years? how do you even document that? For one thing most of those people died of HIV don’t you think the majority of survivors would think that was more then risky? Trust me when I say it’s possible but who could live with the constant fear and sorrow? People learned, people desired more, people went back to monogamy.